Report 1758
Report #1758 Skillset: Skill: Lust Org: Hallifax Status: Rejected Oct 2017 Furies' Decision: We will not be doing this at this time Problem: Lust forcibly adds someone to a target's ally list, and when rejecting or a lust being overrided (from going over the max of 5 lusts), it removes from the ally list. This has a few effects. One, classes with aoe buffs or heals will end up buffing or healing enemies that lust them as a side effect of that lust. Lust is much costlier to remove than paranoia and also enables other skills, so those classes are impacted more than usual. Second, you're required to manually ALLY someone you want to keep as an ally if you're lusted to them and they get removed from your lust list intentionally or unintentionally 2 R: 7 Solution #1: Change the lust list to be separate from the allies list (though still show on ALLIES output as 'unusually strong lust for person'). Lust will no longer remove someone from their ALLIES, nor will it act as if they're allied. It will remove the luster from the target's ENEMY list as usual. 0 R: 7 Solution #2: Make the lust list separate, retaining both allies and enemies on their respective lists even after being lusted. Player Comments: ---on 10/13 @ 02:33 sets as pending ---on 10/14 @ 00:53 writes: Or just put them back on whatever list they were on when the lust fired (so all mechanics stay the same, doesn't really need to be a separate list at all, just needs to remember whether the person was an ally/enemy before the lust fired-- since you can only be lusted to up to 5 people at a time this isn't so huge I think). ---on 10/14 @ 17:41 writes: One of the downsides to using the lust potion in groups is that it messes up these things you've mentiond. Not opposed but just want to point out that this suggestion is a semi/minor buff to love potion. ---on 10/16 @ 11:39 writes: I agree that it's a semi buff to the love potion, but I think that if we think that we need a downside to love potion, something less ... unwieldy as the current behaviour would be better. ---on 10/16 @ 23:44 writes: Again voting "no" in favour of my preferred Solution 3. I'm fine with that one, I just don't see the point in creating a lustlist. ---on 10/18 @ 21:30 writes: One of the major points of Lust is that it makes you count as an ally. I like Xenthos's Sol 3, which preserves that benefit ---on 10/19 @ 20:38 writes: The whole fact that you get put on someone's lust and therefore reap the benefits of them not rejecting you is part and parcel of Lust. It's not just a fling lust so you can empress mechanic. If any solution is to go through I would suggest Xenthos' ---on 10/21 @ 03:42 writes: To express the thoughts of part of the populace, one concern is that the affects of lust are asymmetrical - the example given to me was Geomancer demense vs. Aeromancer. Lust on Geomancer stops negative effects, whereas Lust on the Aeromancer both stops the negative effects and actively heals. Now - I don't think that statement itself warrants a change, so long as facts like these are acknowledged in the rest of skill design and balancing, it seems unavoidable that some effects are stronger against one opponent than another - even of the same archetype. I'm also not entirely convinced of the efficacy and elegance of these solutions for that problem. ---on 10/21 @ 17:29 writes: I don't actually consider that to be a problem, it's part of the design of Lust as it currently exists (beneficial things affect your allies, including people you are lusted to). I do think the system can be made more userfriendly to work with but I don't really think it needs a redesign in terms of mechanical impact.